Patent Application 17823482 - RAILWAY VEHICLE WITH COLLISION-PROTECTING - Rejection

Patent Application 17823482 - RAILWAY VEHICLE WITH COLLISION-PROTECTING

Title: RAILWAY VEHICLE WITH COLLISION-PROTECTING CRUSHABLE AREAS

Application Information

• Invention Title: RAILWAY VEHICLE WITH COLLISION-PROTECTING CRUSHABLE AREAS
• Application Number: 17823482
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-08-30T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-08-30T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 105
• National Sub-Class: 397000
• Examiner Employee Number: 97633
• Art Unit: 3615
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 3
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 are currently pending. Claims 4, 6, and 8-9 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are currently amended. The claim objections to claims 1-3, and 5 are withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 7 and 10 are maintained. Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under new grounds as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments and arguments. Claims 1-3, and 5 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).  A response to applicant’s arguments filed 14 April 2025 can be found at the end of this Office Action. This Office Action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.  
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.


Claim(s) 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneyasu (DE 112012002087 T5).
In regards to claim 1, Kaneyasu discloses a railway vehicle comprising: 
a carbody frame which includes a roof (3) (Fig. 1), a bottom side (2) opposed to and spaced apart from the roof (as seen in Fig. 1), two opposite sides (4), a front end face (5) (Fig. 2), and a rear end face (5) opposite (see machine translation para. [0020], line 210) to the front end face (5), wherein the roof (3) (Fig. 1), the bottom side (2), the two opposite sides (4) and the front and rear end faces (5) (Fig. 2) delimit altogether an inner space (para. [0020], lines 210-214), wherein at least one of said front and rear end faces (5) comprises a through opening (6) configured to define a passageway (as seen in Fig. 2); 
one or more posts (52) (Fig. 2) which are positioned at (as seen in Fig. 2) least one of said front and rear end faces (5) and extend, along a substantially vertical axis (para. [0021], lines 231-236), for at least a portion of a vertical distance (as seen in Fig. 2) existing between said roof (3) (Fig. 1) and said bottom side (2); and 
one or more crushable devices (50) (Fig. 3), each of the crushable devices (50) being connected to and extending, along said substantially vertical axis (as seen in Fig. 13), for at least a predominant portion of the vertical extension (see annotated Fig. 13 below, the crushable devices extend along a substantially vertical axis for a predominant portion of the post 52) of an associated post of said one or more posts (52); and
at least one diaphragm (70) (Fig. 1) of a gangway, which is configured to provide the passageway in and out (para. [0020], lines 218-223) from the railway vehicle (1), said at least one diaphragm (70) being positioned, outside said inner space (as seen in Fig. 1), at and spaced apart from one of the front or rear end faces (as seen in Fig. 4, front or rear end faces 5 include frame 102),
wherein the one or more posts (52) (Fig. 2) comprise a first collision post (52, on the left) and a second collision post (52, on the right) which are positioned at the sides (as seen in Fig. 2) of said through opening (6), respectively, and wherein the one or more crushable devices (50) comprise a first crushable device (see annotated Fig. 13 below) which is interposed between and is connected to the first collision post (52, on the left) (as seen in Fig. 13) and the diaphragm (70) (as seen in Fig. 6), and a second crushable device (see annotated Fig. 13 below) which is interposed between and is connected to the second collision post (52, on the right) (as seen in Fig. 13) and the diaphragm (70) (as seen in Fig. 6),
wherein said first and second crushable devices (50) (see annotated Fig. 13 below) respectively comprise (i) a frame (102) (Fig. 5) which extends vertically along said substantially vertical axis (as seen in Fig. 4), wherein the frame has a U- or C-shaped cross section (as seen in Fig. 5), and (ii) a plurality of plates (110) (Fig. 3) arranged in a sequence along said substantially vertical axis (as seen in Fig. 13) in the frame (102) to be spaced apart from each other (as seen in Fig. 3, the distance 130A between plates 110), wherein the plurality of plates (110) are connected to said U- or C-shaped frame (102) (as seen in Fig. 3). 

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    408
    433
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale

In regards to claim 2, Kaneyasu discloses the railway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein each of the crushable devices (50) (Fig. 3) is connected to a surface of the associated post (52) (Fig. 13) oriented outwardly (as seen in Fig. 5) with respect to said inner space (para. [0020], lines 210-214).
In regards to claim 3, Kaneyasu discloses the railway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein each of the crushable devices (50) (Fig. 3) is connected in a removable way (para. [0026], lines 283-284) to a surface of the associated post (Fig. 13) oriented outwardly with respect to said inner space (para. [0020], lines 210-214).
In regards to claim 5, Kaneyasu discloses the railway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said one or more crushable devices (50) (Fig. 6) is connected in a removable way (120) to a surface of the diaphragm (70) facing towards said inner space (as seen in Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.  
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneyasu (DE 112012002087 T5).
In regards to claim 7, Kaneyasu teaches the railway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said first and second collision posts (52) (Fig. 2) are positioned at the sides of said through opening (6) protruding from the front or rear end face (5).
While Kaneyasu does not explicitly teach the posts protruding inwardly towards the inner space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collision posts protruding inwardly towards the inner space with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the structural support of the posts, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.  A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 10, Kaneyasu teaches the railway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said one or more posts (52) (Fig. 2) comprise at least a first corner post (the left post 52 forms a corner post due to being a part of the frame making the opening 6) and a second corner posts (the right post 52 forms a corner post due to being a part of the frame making the opening 6) with one of the front and rear end faces (5) (Fig. 2).
While Kaneyasu doesn’t teach wherein the corner posts are positioned at the corners formed by each of the two opposite sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the corner posts at the corners formed by each of the two opposite sides with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing protection at the far edges of the vehicle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 are currently pending. Claims 4, 6, and 8-9 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are currently amended. The claim objections to claims 1-3, and 5 are withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 7 and 10 are maintained. Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under new grounds as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments and arguments. Claims 1-3, and 5 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).  
Applicant argues that Kaneyasu does not teach a plurality of plates arranged in a sequence in the frame of the energy absorption elements. Examiner responds in disagreement, as seen in both Figs. 3 and 13, the plurality of plates 110 are arranged in a sequence in the frame 102.
Applicant argues that the crushable devices being listed as 110 means they cannot also be used to reference the plates. Examiner responds in agreement and provides the above rejections. The crushable devices (50) include the plurality of plates (110).  The Examiner includes the entire device pointed to by reference numeral 50 to be the crushable device, and what were listed as the crushable devices in the previous office action (reference numeral 110) to be the plurality of plates. 
Applicant argues that replacing the discrete energy absorption members of Kaneyasu with "crushable devices extending, along said substantially vertical axis, for at least a predominant portion of the vertical extension of an associated post" of the claimed invention would destroy the intended solution of Kaneyasu. Examiner responds in disagreement, pointing to the rejection of claim 1 above as well as annotated Fig. 13. The crushable devices 50 are extending in a vertical direction for a predominant portion of the associated post. 
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.





/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/           Examiner, Art Unit 3615                                                                                                                                                                                             
/S. Joseph Morano/           Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615